top of page
SU Mountain Logo SM.png

SHASTA

Serving the North State with Honest News and Entertainment
Donate $

UNFILTERED

  • Facebook
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Youtube

Shasta County DA Stephanie Bridgett and the Zogg Fire Settlement

Poor Judgment in Unchecked Discretion and Questionable Fund Usage


Zogg fire destruction - photo courtsy ABC news
Zogg fire destruction - photo courtsy ABC news

The 2020 Zogg Fire, ignited by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) equipment, killed four people and destroyed hundreds of structures in Shasta County. In May 2023, District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett negotiated a $50 million civil settlement with PG&E, dismissing remaining criminal charges—including manslaughter—in exchange for $5 million in civil penalties and $45 million in charitable contributions for fire prevention, community recovery, and local nonprofits. Notably, none of the settlement funds went directly to the actual victims or their families; instead, the settlement structure emphasized broader community benefits, leaving individuals to pursue separate civil lawsuits against PG&E for personal compensation.


It appears that Bridgett exercised sole discretion over the $45 million charitable distributions, allocating funds to 24 organizations. We found no public record that documents any prior oversight from the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, or any other entity. Judicial approval was limited to dismissing the charges and did not extend to reviewing specific allocations. The second-largest share—$7 million—went to the Children's Legacy Center (CLC) (a nonprofit focused on child abuse prevention and support) in Redding, where Bridgett served (and continues to serve) as an unpaid board secretary. Though no personal financial gain was found, this direct affiliation created a clear apparent conflict of interest.


This allocation decision draws sharp criticism for Bridgett's use of prosecutorial discretion in structuring the criminal resolution. While California law allows DAs broad authority in corporate wildfire cases, Bridgett chose to dismiss manslaughter charges without incorporating conditions for direct victim relief, such as dedicated compensation funds or targeted aid programs. Critics argue this approach failed to prioritize the human cost of the fire, forcing traumatized survivors—many from modest economic backgrounds—to bear the burden of lengthy, costly civil litigation against a powerful utility. The fairness of this system is questionable, as victims must navigate complex lawsuits, often on contingency fees, while PG&E can delay or settle confidentially to minimize scrutiny.


In contrast, the 2021 Dixie Fire resolution—handled by a consortium of North State DAs—demonstrates an alternative path. Instead of pursuing criminal charges, they filed a civil complaint to "maximize the return to the fire victims," securing a $45 million settlement directed toward local recovery efforts that more directly benefited affected communities and individuals. This victim-focused strategy avoided the limitations of criminal fines (often capped and payable to the state) and provided tangible relief, highlighting how Bridgett could have structured the Zogg case to better serve survivors but opted not to.

Shasta DA - Stephanie Bridgett
Shasta DA - Stephanie Bridgett

Furthermore, Bridgett's emphasis for the Zogg settlement was focused on charitable organizations that offer limited direct benefit to the areas most devastated by the fire. While funds supported fire departments and nonprofits, much of the allocation went to broader regional services rather than hyper-local aid for Zogg-specific victims in rural, hard-hit zones like Mountain Gate or Igo-Ono. This diffuse approach diluted the impact on those who lost homes, livelihoods, and loved ones, raising questions about whether the settlement truly honored the tragedy or served other priorities. A list of the organizations receiving settlement funds is listed at the end of this article.


The California Attorney General's 2024 investigation under Rob Bonta cleared Bridgett of any misconduct, impropriety, or abuse of discretion. Yet this legal exoneration does not excuse a serious lapse in judgment: holding unchecked authority over victim-related funds, there is no evidence that Bridgett made an effort to seek proactive external review, recusal, or even informal consultation for the allocation to the CLC organization with which she is affiliated.


Ethical standards for prosecutors and public officials require more than legal compliance—they demand actively avoiding even the appearance of favoritism to preserve public trust. Available safeguards, such as consulting County Supervisors, County Counsel, requesting an AG advisory opinion, or inviting independent scrutiny of conflicted allocations, were not sought in a settlement tied to profound community loss—especially troubling given that no direct aid reached the victims.


Subsequent reporting has intensified questions about Bridgett's motives and the wisdom of directing millions to CLC. In October 2024, investigative journalist Chriss W. Street published a critical series on the Mountain Top Times Substack (part of Mountain Top Media, an on-line news and information site popular with the area's conservative majority), highlighting CLC's financial practices:

  • Administrative overhead consumed 36 cents per donated dollar—double the rate of comparable local nonprofits.

  • CEO Kimberly Johnson's compensation rose sharply from $19,200 in 2018 to $191,270 in 2022, with likely further increases.

  • A major state-funded group home program failed mid-contract, incurring over $1 million in losses amid operational issues. (program ran from 2022 - 2024)

  • Despite substantial funding, direct Shasta County contracts for local services were minimal ($898,907 from 2018–2024).

  • Street suggested the $7 million Zogg allocation may have propped up elevated overhead costs and other operational losses.


While CLC disputed some claims as politically motivated and announced rebranding plans, these findings—revealing high administrative bloat and limited direct community impact—cast further questions on Bridgett's decision to award the second largest amount to the organization with which she is affiliated. They raise legitimate concerns about whether settlement funds derived from tragedy were steered toward an organization with inefficient spending patterns, amplifying the apparent conflict and questioning the basis for prioritizing CLC despite her board role—particularly when victims received nothing directly from the deal.


The controversy endures amid Shasta County's political divisions, including a December 2025 $56 million lawsuit by former Supervisor Patrick Jones against Bridgett on separate allegations. Ultimately, Bridgett's solitary, unchecked control over the allocations—without voluntary transparency measures—reflects poor ethical judgment. This preventable episode eroded trust in PG&E accountability efforts and highlights a vital principle: public officials, particularly prosecutors, must exceed minimum legal requirements to ensure decisions withstand scrutiny and truly serve the community.


Footnote:

  1. A search of public records show that most of the actual victims of the Zogg fire are still awaiting justice. These are people of modest means and without the deep pockets to pursue suits against PG&E, who has now been relieved of any criminal wrongdoing because of the Bridgett Settlement.

  2. List of organizations receiving settlement funds:


Organization

Amount Allocated

Shasta County Fire Department

$15.5 million

Children's Legacy Center

$7 million

Anderson Fire Department

$3.5 million

Redding Fire Department

$3.5 million

Haven Humane Society

$2.5 million

Shasta College Fire Academy

$2.4 million

Whiskeytown Environmental School

$1 million

The balance of the funds (approximately $9million) went to various other charitable organizations.


Sources:

bottom of page